People v Soriano

FACTS: her brothers Mark and Marvin in the house of their grandfather Ileodoro Nadua, she
went home, but her brothers stayed behind. The house of her grandfather was about 300
meters away from theirs. On her way home, May Ann met accused-appellant Artemio
Soriano, whom she called Manong Iniong. But instead of accompanying her home, accused-
appellant took her to a dry creek, made her lie down, and then removed her shorts and
underwear. He then applied saliva on May Anns private parts and had sexual intercourse
with her. May Ann said she felt pain as accused-appellant forced himself upon her.
Afterwards, he took her home. May Ann claimed that accused-appellant raped her several
times more in his house, enticing her to go there by giving her candies and lollipops.

Accused-appellant Artemio Soriano,26 years old, single, and a resident of Buy-otan in

Bauang, La Union, anchored his defense on denial and alibi.

Accused-appellant presented the barangay tanods who claimed that they had repeatedly
asked May Ann what accused-appellant had done to her but May Ann never said a word.
But then May Ann did not really tell anyone what had happened to her until Baby Cake in a
quarrel said that she had seen her brother, accused-appellant, having sexual intercourse
with complainant. The reason was that she was afraid to tell anyone about her harrowing
experience.

ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the accused may be co victed of rape in the house; (2) whether or not
the age of the victim may be considered to qualify the offense

RULING:

Accused-appellant also points out discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses. It is said that Antonio Fontillas testified on cross-examination that May Ann told him
that the first sexual assault took place near the creek at nighttime after she watched television
in the house of a certain Adelina Cundran.[20] However, Mirasol Fontillas testified that her
daughter told her that the first sexual assault happened in the house of accused-appellant,
between 9 oclock to 10 oclock in the morning, after accused-appellant had fetched May Ann
from their house.[21] On the other hand, May Ann testified that the first sexual assault took place
near the creek (waig) after she watched television in the house of her grandfather Ileodoro.[22]
The inconsistencies pointed out refer, however, to minor collateral matters. They do not
detract from May Anns testimony that she had been raped by accused-appellant in May 1995.
Antonio testified that before going to the police station, he asked May Ann about the incidents
and the latter told him that the first rape was committed sometime in May of 1995 near the
creek and the second took place in accused-appellants house.[23]The discrepancy in Antonios
testimony as to the place where May Ann came from after watching television is insignificant.
What is important is that it was proven that May Ann was raped near a creek.
On cross-examination, Mirasol was asked when and where the first sexual assault against
May Ann actually took place - whether in the evening near the creek or in the morning in the
house of the accused-appellant. She answered that the first was in accused-appellants house
but it also happened near the creek.[24] This inconsistency is insignificant because, as told to
her, accused-appellant fetched May Ann and took her to his house where he raped her. May
Ann testified that accused-appellant had been molesting her. The variance as to whether the
rape that took place in the house was the first incident or whether it occurred on a later date
is of no consequence as the fact is that May Ann was raped by accused-appellant.

his case, the age of May Ann, who was six years old at the time the rape was committed,
was alleged in the information and duly proven during the trial. The records[45] show that a
certified true copy of the certification from the Register of Births was issued by the Municipal
Civil Registrar of Bauang, La Union, stating that the date of birth of May Ann was October 21,
1989. This, however, was not duly marked as an exhibit. However, May Anns age was
nonetheless duly proven by her testimony and the testimony of both her parents. A year after
the rape, May Ann testified that she was seven years old.[46] Her father Antonio testified that
he and Mirasol had five children, namely Mark Anthony, Marvin, May Ann, Madel, and Daniel.
When asked about May Anns age, he said that May Ann was six (6) years old.[47]On cross-
examination, Antonio was again asked how old May Ann was and he answered that she was
six (6) years old.[48] A year after the rape, her mother Mirasol testified that May Ann was turning
seven years old.[49] Parents have personal knowledge of the age of their children. Moreover,
judicial notice of May Anns age may be taken considering that she is below 10 years old.[50]
Finally, accused-appellant argues that, in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures, he should not be meted the death penalty. He
argues that the minority of May Ann must be specifically alleged in the information as a
qualifying circumstance in order that it may be appreciated against him. Otherwise, the death
penalty cannot be imposed upon him as he was not fully apprised of the charges against him.
This is error. The rules state that the specific qualifying or aggravating circumstances
must be alleged in the information and duly proven during the trial. Otherwise, even if these
were subsequently proven, the same cannot be appreciated in determining the proper penalty.
However, it need not be alleged that the aggravating circumstance is qualifying.
the contrary, in the case at bar, the information alleged that May Ann was six years old at
the time she was raped by accused-appellant. This qualifying circumstance was clearly
established during the trial. Under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty of death shall be imposed upon the accused if the victim
is a child below seven (7) years old. Hence, the trial court correctly imposed the death
penalty on accused-appellant.

RULING: However, as the trial court ruled, accused-appellant can only be held
liable for the rape committed near the creek and not also for those which he
allegedly committed in his house, even if the same were proven during the trial
because no informations were filed against him for the latter crimes. The
accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. He cannot be convicted of a crime with which he has not been
charged even if the evidence shows that he committed the same.